The objective of this study was to determine if basic, biomedical research manuscripts reviewed by a science editor for clarity and style before submission to a journal reduces the time to publication compared to non-edited manuscripts. From 2006, academic authors self-reported published articles for inclusion in a college research newsletter. Dates received and accepted by each journal were determined for each published article (N=47), and days-to-publication was calculated. Mean and standard deviation were calculated using SPSS software. A statistician determined significance using analysis of variance tests with and without the covariate of each journal’s average time from submission to first decision (JAvg). Authors who had their manuscripts edited before submission to a journal had their papers accepted an average of 27.25 days earlier than authors who did not seek science editing (P=.052). Without considering the covariate JAvg, the mean difference increased to 31.04 days (P=.172). Although differences were observed, neither analysis was significant, likely because of the small sample size. A post-hoc power analysis showed that a sample size of 190 would have an 85% chance to detect a significant difference at alpha .05. I expected that the edited articles would have fewer days to publication than non-edited articles. A possible reason for the difference in days to publication is that improved clarity of the manuscripts made for faster peer reviewer reading and required fewer corrections to be made by the author(s). However, other, intangible variables may also affect manuscript acceptance time, such as differences in individual reviewer and journal practices; therefore, further analysis with a larger sample size would provide more reliable results.